Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Monday, August 8, 2016

The label is not the behavior

I've noticed that a number of people who are skeptical of the socio-sexual theory keep making the same mistake. They focus on the labels, rather than on the observed behavior to which the labels are applied.

There is no doubt that Alphas exist. There is no doubt that Gammas exist. We know this because we see them exhibiting the differentiating behavior in action on a daily basis. It doesn't matter what they are called; although the terms have become descriptors and predictive behavioral models, they are derived from actual behavior observed and recorded by others.

So, don't get caught up in the descriptors, their status implications notwithstanding. They are only there to label the various behaviors being observed.

Drew, the most honest way IMO is that alpha is as alpha has, beta is as beta has, etc.If your wife/girlfriend is hot, you're probably an alpha. If the alpha description is terribly ill fitting, you may be a sigma.If your wife/girlfriend is not overweight and has pleasing features and treats you well, you're probably a beta. (This assumes US distributions, where average features and not overweight lands a woman at the 75th percentile right off the bat---betas can command women in the 80th and low 90th percentiles.If your wife/gf is not overweight but is very average otherwise, you're a pretty high delta.50th percentile deltas typically have overweight gf/wives, or their wives have something else holding them down to the 50th percentile.

Jehu is correct. The best indication of your rank is success with women. Not your imagined success, but actual success. If you are currently out of the market due to your own life choices but plan to re-enter at some point that is also fine, but your current rank is zero (Omega by choice).

The most important thing is not to lie to yourself about your rank as that's what Gammas do all of the time.

Well and good. People are not algorithms, everyone is inconsistent, so no one person is always going to exhibit X behavior, no matter what you call it. Fair enough. I still have two problems with the theory.

1: It provides too many outs for failures. If supposedly "alpha" behavior fails to do what alpha behavior is supposed to do, it can just be excused as a failure of "internal frame" or something. Basically, they didn't believe enough, and that line of thought is a red flag to me.

2: I'm still not clear on what the metric is for the various designations. Is alpha just status seeking, or that which women respond to sexually, or something else entirely? I see Jehu has set the various categories entirely in terms of which women the exhibitors wind up with. Is that a reasonable rule here?

If you have a lot of female friends who are always dating assholes and complaining about them to you, and you routinely host sausage parties, you are probably a Gamma. If you do get around, it's with fat or otherwise very undesirable women. If white, highly likely to have a nonwhite wife/girlfriend.

If the Gamma description is terribly ill-fitting, but you aren't terribly social, and are routinely described as creepy or weird, you are most likely an Omega. If white, Omegas also tend to have nonwhite partners, if they can get them at all.

Lambdas are simply queers, but they do resemble Gammas far more than anything else.

50th percentile deltas typically have overweight gf/wives, or their wives have something else holding them down to the 50th percentile.

Typically, if a woman who looks cute or hot appears to be dating down, it's because she has mental problems and/or is a single mom. This explains the Delta/Gamma tendency to claim that hot girls are all crazy.

If you're really wanting to know how women evaluate you in terms of a percentile, accept a bunch of meet & greet dates on a site like Eharmony. Here's the thing. The women who treat you the best and show you the most interest are going to be the ones from your percentile to your percentile less a few percent. The women who consider themselves as not in your league (because they think they're beneath it) will tend to act pretty reserved as they don't want to get burned with someone they don't think they can keep. The behavior when they're out of your league in the other direction you probably already know.

The question is whether these behaviors actually are as distinctive as the system makes them out to be. If you say they are crude waypoints, I am willing to say "cool, that's not bad!". If you say that these categories actually exist in reality exactly like that and with no abberations, then I must conclude you are unrealistic. After all, if those categories were that fixed, transition between them would be impossible, which indicates, to me, a fluid shade of greys.

Also, a particular person may exhibit behaviors of various categories at the same time, depending on their individual psychological set up.

Also, you have to consider confirmation bias. When you go out with this categorization in mind and look at people, your mind will automatically categorize them and look for the described traits. This observation will seem to confirm your theory while blending out everything that is more faceted or doesn't quite fit or defies categorization.

But yeah, I guess it's a cool thing to have as crude pointers. Cause it's fun to be thinking about that.

@Tom ArrowYes, there are atypical types of each rank. But they still fit into the framework.

First of all, all Deltas struggle with Gamma behavior to a greater or lesser extent, but they do have at least some humility and self-awareness about it, unlike Gammas.

Secondly, with the Delta and Gamma ranks (and possibly Omega and Lambda too), you have to consider that men are naturally leaders, followers, and loners, exhibited at the top of the hierarchy by the Alpha, Beta, and Sigma ranks. Most men are followers, so the archetype of Delta and Gamma will be the follower type. But there are leader and loner types of Delta and Gamma which are less common. (For example, Ted Cruz is a Gamma loner.)

FWIW, I've found the Gamma concept to be extraordinarily useful. It helped me understand (and to let go of) many of my orbiters. Specifically, I now understand why they are orbiters and not genuine friends, why they will never admit to being orbiters, why they seem bi-polar when it comes to women, and why no amount of coaching and advice has had an impact, despite many years of effort on my part. When I started pushing back more on their self-assessments, particularly of how their interactions with women went, I inevitably discovered a house of cards. I've since shared the concept with an Alpha friend of mine who frequently takes on a coaching/mentoring role, and he too now uses it to keep energy-sucking Gammas at a distance.

That said, I often have trouble classifying my non-Gamma friends under this framework. My husband, for instance, would have to be Delta (or "voluntary Omega" per Delta Man above), but we have none of the issues Deltas and Tier 1 women are supposed to have. Maybe that's because I'm primarily Tier 1 due to chastity (an 8 who's only been with her husband). I suspect the Tiers for women over-value chastity relative to today's culture in the US. According to the SMV calculator at Heartise, my husband and I are roughly equal now that I'm 30. The idea of both us being comfortably beta/greater beta feels truer to me. But then if I've learned anything from reading comments here, it's that self-assessment is the least reliable assessment...

My husband, for instance, would have to be Delta (or "voluntary Omega" per Delta Man above), but we have none of the issues Deltas and Tier 1 women are supposed to have. Maybe that's because I'm primarily Tier 1 due to chastity (an 8 who's only been with her husband).

@S. MisanthropeThere is no way your husband could be considered an Omega, voluntary or otherwise. Heartiste himself has pointed out (here) that quality matters. I'd say he's a Beta.

The opposite would be a manwhore who bangs the fattest, nastiest skanks in town, and moreover, sometimes goes overseas to the Philippines, but never manages to get with any woman higher than a 5. Sure, he'd have a much higher notch count, on paper... but you can't really call that fellow an Alpha.

I banged two of the three girls voted most popular in high school. However, my best friend was an alpha banging the one I really wanted. I'm a beta with sigma tendencies. Dude was just a better wrestler and fucking natural leader.

I banged two of the three girls voted most popular in high school. However, my best friend was an alpha banging the one I really wanted. I'm a beta with sigma tendencies. Dude was just a better wrestler and fucking natural leader.

The problem I have with the labels is the implication that you are ALWAYS in one category. Most men I know display various behaviors depending on the situation and environment. I can get on board with the idea that someone predominantly uses one style, or that they are more naturally suited to one style, but the labels are describing behavior, not character. Behavior can reveal character, but learned behaviors can also obscure true character.

The other problem I have with the labels is the valuation given to them by those in the manosphere. It is automatically assumed that being "Alpha" is of higher value. But it is a truth that a society made up of entirely Alpha men would have a hard time getting things accomplished. Leaders need followers. And being a follower can have tremendous value.

If you limit the labels to the sphere of male/female relationships, then I agree that every man needs to be the Alpha at home. Men were created by God to be the leaders of the home, and are more naturally equipped to bear the burden - much like women are naturally equipped to bear children. So, from the standpoint of improving intersexual relationships, and equipping families to survive and thrive, then the terminology has value.

But in male-male relationships in society and the workplace, there is a time to be a leader, and a time to follow. From that perspective, we need everyone to make a society run properly. See 1 Corinthians 12 for a Biblical dissertation on how we all depend on one another.

My disappointment with the manosphere in this election cycle has been applying what I consider valid labels when talking about intersexual relationships to elevate political candidates over one another, or describe those who support someone who favors a different candidate in a derogatory fashion - assuming that support or lack of support of a particular candidate discloses one's Psycho-Sexual position in the heirarchy. This is especially true when you consider that there are plenty of Alpha-type lady-killers supporting virtually any candidate you wish to choose.

Every field of study and endeavor has its own unique set of terminology. When I was teaching Air Conditioning Systems Design in college, I demanded my students learn the vocabulary of the HVAC industry. But it would be odd to apply that terminology to Accounting or Real Estate. To me, it just seems like a huge error to apply Manosphere terminology created for the purpose of describing intersexual relationship dynamics to political candidates, and those who support them. It just doesn't fit.

Having said all that, the manosphere has been very helpful in gaining understanding on why I have had a lot of success with women in my life when I acted in certain ways, and less success at other times. And there are times, say for example, when dealing directly with another man's wife when it is inappropriate to assert your Alpha dominance over her husband. It actually undermines the very relationships that we need to make society function properly. (This is another good reason not to mix men and women in the workplace, by the way.)

VFM #7634 I see what you're saying. When I first read the categories, I thought Beta was the closest fit for my husband. Thinking about it more, my ridiculously short dating history consists entirely of Betas, so that actually makes a lot of sense. I think I got derailed by focusing too much on the classic high school popularity strati and thus assuming my husband's mild dislike of sports and Alpha jocks meant he couldn't be Beta. I should've known when he boarded the Trump train so quickly ("He has concealed carry? I'm in."). I'll let him know he's been promoted, haha.

Tom Arrow makes a very good point. I'd go further. In reality, when ascribing labels to any male behaviour that makes it easier for women to reject the whole man because of one or some aspects of his being, women will use it in precisely that way. I can't see many women using the system in the way it is useful for men, to encourage self-improvement.

Women's nature is misanthropic - at an instinctual level they are amenable beyond common courtesy with men (and women, I suspect) only when they perceive that being more amenable benefits them or theirs in some way. This is no more obvious than when it comes to sexual attraction. Hypergamy would compel even the most gracious of them to look not for reasons to accept a man but reject him, even if thise reasons are a temporal anomaly. A system that enables them to reject men for any and every little chink in the armour while in God's fitting room validates negative social conditioning. It's a sure as heck way to encourage discontent in women (and exhaust the men).

Without meaning any offence to S. Misanthrope, her comment above reveals tjis sort of behavior. She has rounded up in her mind whole real men for what she perceives as Gamma behavior and, rather clinically, rejected not just the behavior but the men as well. If she were still in the dating market, those rejected men would probably never get another look-in, even if they self-improve in ways that place them higher in the system than the men she found attractive straight off the bat.

While the label is not the behavior and certainly not the whole man, women will use this system and the behavior of all but the Alpha it describes as a useful labour-saving device for discontent. Women already struggle with the notion that the man for whom they've settled is second, third or nth-best - a real-life reminder of the One that got away. This system, labels and all, is putting a cudgeling tool in her hands.

Interesting, but I do not fully agree. Women, at least that is my impression, care less about rational labels and categorizations than simple animalistic power and confidence.

That's what so much of game is about, I figure. To maintain frame. If you do that, the woman's "doubts" disperse.

Although, sometimes I think that women just throw that shit at you because they heard it elsewhere, so you may be right in certain regards. They may throw "gamma" at someone, because they heard it, and see how that man reacts. On the other hand, I have - aside from that bitch above - hardly ever seen a woman use these words to attack men. They usually resort to stuff like "you have a small dick" or "you are lonely and unlovable" and "bitter" and "misogynist" and the tongue-in-cheek "jerk" or "creep". The rational "scientific" language does not fit them too well, I am afraid. Maybe that is something that the more intelligent women might do, but the normal ones prefer more vulgar language.

Unknown: Yeah, if only I had hung in there 8 years instead of only 7, Gamma would have jumped right over Delta and Beta into the Alpha stratosphere, finally winning my heart away from my consistent, virtuous, loving husband and partner of 12 years.

If she were still in the dating market, those rejected men would probably never get another look-in, even if they self-improve in ways that place them higher in the system than the men she found attractive straight off the bat.

Unknown, it doesn't matter. If a given man did undergo a transition out of Gamma or Omega, he would also be meeting new women in the meantime who had no memory of him as a Gamma or Omega.

And let's face it... the vast majority of Gammas and Omegas never do transition out. So quite apart from the effect of having seen the man as low-rank on her memory, the odds favor her writing him off anyway.

To be less glib (and to read Unknown's comment more accurately), if I had in fact stayed on the market while Gamma improved, I would think that by now my status would be lowered to the point that his improvement would mean he could get someone more desirable (younger) than me, anyway. So it probably doesn't matter. Plenty of girls on the girl tree, right?

I don't have enough experience personally to tell whether I could go from not attracted to attracted to someone, but so far if I start off attracted and then become unattracted, I never go back to being attracted again. (Usually the reason for the switch is realizing they are less intelligent than I thought or that they are sexually insecure.) I have no idea if this is typical for women or not.

VFM 7674, I believe the common refrain heard from Deltas and Gammas that all women are crazy does not come from them dating crazy women. But that men have been told their whole lives that the sexes are the same. So when women think and act differently it appears crazy. Alphas/Sigmas naturally understand this is nonsense but it takes a lot to wake up Deltas/Gammas from what they've been taught their whole lives.

@Scott6584There's truth in what you say, but you're going a bit too far in the direction of "these labels just don't apply in political sphere".

They are, of course, not a be-all and tell-all, but they are a socio-sexual hierarchy. The social status is often relative, but it's still somewhat applicable in determining what kind of person a possible leader could be.

If you elect a Gamma, the Gamma's gonna Gamma.

Now, this is not to say that if an election were between a Beta and an Alpha, that the Alpha would be the best pick - but you'd at least get a sense of what kind of person he would be, and how that might affect his leadership style.

To put it in terms of your metaphor, this is not a situation where you're trying to play HVAC terms to something completely unrelated, but HVAC terms to something halfway related.

Question for you Vox: I was reading a post from the archives of this blog where you say:

"Forget about it unless you are funny enough to reliably and consistently get a good belly laugh from your friends with your comments. Being funny is not being able to recite Monty Python on command to a woman. In all likelihood you are not funny, you will never be really funny and you should not choose this as a way to attract women."

I agree with you on this one. Nevertheless, a playful attitude (combined with ZFG) is one of the easiest and most versatile ways of picking up women.

Given this, men that are not funny will have trouble keeping this light & playful attitude without coming off as weird or creepy. What is your advice for these men? What should be the baseline of their pick up?

There is no doubt that alphas particularly apex alphas exist. The rub that the lower masses experience however is "Your worth is your status - if you are not alpha you are in total, no matter any factor, a worthless piece of shit. Now go kill yourself or make yourself happy slaving away for your betters both male and female but just have the decency to sacrifice and get the hell out of the way when they want to have sex. Here is the bill for your betters hotel room and don't forget to tip."

Now it is true that a person of lower rank can emulate the behaviors for a higher rank individual... for a time. This doesn't last forever in my experience and so we are left with the original quandary. You can increase your rank by lifting weights, getting hobbies, increasing your wealth but on the other side of the coin you are trying to confuse what is basically a blood hound sniffing for alphaness and most of the tricks you are using will only work for a time. Women are incredibly skilled at sniffing out who is who.

I am not necessarily strongly against attempting to classify the candidates, although there are some problems with it. My point is that clear Alpha types appear in all the different camps. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are both very clear Alphas. And one of them supports Hillary.

The issue I have is trying to classify the supporters of the candidates based ONLY on the fact that they support a particular candidate. That is what I've found specious, at best. I would bet good money that EVERY type of man is represented in the supporters of EVERY major candidate. I object to broad brush classifications of the supporters. The candidates are much easier to classify, because we can actually see their behavior and evaluate it.